81 Test-retest Reliability of the Oral Trail Making Test Administered on the Telephone

Abstract

Objective:

In the aftermath and continuance of the COVID-19 pandemic, the field of neuropsychology has experienced a burgeoning literature base on remote telehealth practices. These practices include both videoconference and telephone modalities. Several studies to date have proposed evidence suggesting that inperson and remote telehealth assessments demonstrate comparable results. One of the major limitations to telehealth practices is the scarcity of measures of processing speed. A widely used measure is the Oral Trail Making Test, which has two trials (A & B). Oral Trails B is often conceptualized as a measure of set-shifting and cognitive flexibility. And validity studies support Oral Trails B having strong test-retest reliability and correlation to its written counterpart. In contrast, there is contention as to whether Oral Trails A can be conceptualized as a measure of basic attention and speed versus simple numerical automaticity. Importantly, to our knowledge, the test-retest reliability of Oral Trails A administered specifically via telephone has never been reported in a healthy sample. The following study presents test-retest reliability for the Oral Trails A and B (in a healthy control group) administered as part of a larger study investigating the effects of deep diaphragmatic breathing on cognitive functioning.

Participants and Methods:

Eighty healthy young adults with elevated stress levels were recruited from a major metropolitan city at a major university. The subjects had to be between the ages of 18 to 29 and self-reported Perceived Stress Scale score >13. The subjects could not practice any form of meditation, yoga, or breathing exercise regularly. Additionally, they could not have any severe medical or psychiatric disorder, be actively suicidal; have a substance use disorder within the past year, or use of medication with a known negative impact on cognition or autonomic nervous system (ANS) arousal. Participants were randomized to a waitlist control group or an intervention group. Cognitive assessments were administered over the phone to both groups (pre and post-treatment) and self-report measures were completed online due to quarantine restrictions.

Results:

Among participants in the waitlist control group, the mean difference (MD) between time points on OTMT-A (MD= -0.17, SD= 1.69) was small and not significant (p>0.05). The mean difference for OTMT-B (MD= -13.06, SD=26.99) was large and significant (p=0.01). Bivariate Pearson correlations were computed revealing a significant moderate strength relationship between OTMT-A performance across time points (r=0.6, p<0.001). In contrast, performance on OTMT-B across time points revealed a nonsignificant, weak relationship (r=0.2, p=1.94).

Conclusions:

These results do not support literature demonstrating strong test-retest reliability for OTMT-B. Furthermore, this is the first study establishing test-retest reliability for the OTMT-A as administered via a novel telephonic modality. Given the novel and non-standardized method of administration, the data should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, given the weak relationship in OTMT-B performance and the only moderate relationship of OTMT-A performance across time points, the results suggest that the OTMT may not be highly reliable as administered via a telephonic modality.